FEMA: The Incompetence Continues

by hilzoy

Last weekend, it seemed as though every major news organization put out a story attempting to explain what went wrong with the response to Hurricane Katrina. This weekend, the theme is the continuing screwups by FEMA. (NYT, WaPo, CNN, LATimes.) From the New York Times story:

"Nearly three weeks after Hurricane Katrina cut its devastating path, FEMA - the same federal agency that botched the rescue mission - is faltering in its effort to aid hundreds of thousands of storm victims, local officials, evacuees and top federal relief officials say. The federal aid hot line mentioned by President Bush in his address to the nation on Thursday cannot handle the flood of calls, leaving thousands of people unable to get through for help, day after day.

Federal officials are often unable to give local governments permission to proceed with fundamental tasks to get their towns running again. Most areas in the region still lack federal help centers, the one-stop shopping sites for residents in need of aid for their homes or families. Officials say that they are uncertain whether they can meet the president's goal of providing housing for 100,000 people who are now in shelters by the middle of next month. (...)

The president of St. Tammany Parish, Kevin Davis, is praying that it does not rain in his sweltering corner of Louisiana, because three weeks after the storm severely damaged his drainage system, FEMA has yet to give him approval to even start the repairs. Up north in the poor parish of Washington, residents are sleeping in houses that were chopped in half by oak trees. The promised wave of government inspectors have not shown up to assist them.

James McGehee, the mayor of Bogalusa, a small Louisiana city near the Mississippi border, could barely contain his rage in an interview on Thursday. "Today is 18 days past the storm, and FEMA has not even put a location for people who are displaced," he said. "They are walking around the damn streets. The system's broke." (...)

In Tangipahoa Parish, the parish president, Gordon Burgess, said he called FEMA officials daily to ask when they would arrive to assist residents with housing. Mr. Burgess said the federal workers say, " 'I'll get to you next week,' and then the next week and then you'd never hear from them again."

Indeed, almost every local leader interviewed - even those sympathetic to FEMA's plight - complained that they could not get FEMA to approve their contracts with workers, tell them when they would be opening help centers or answer basic questions. Often, they say, the FEMA worker on the ground, eager to help, has to go up the chain of command before taking action, which can take days.

"People on the ground are wonderful but the problem is getting the 'yes,' " said Mr. Davis of St Tammany parish, who has a contractor ready to clean his drainage system of the same trees FEMA allowed him to take off his streets, and to repair parts of the sewage system. "I'm saying, 'Wait a minute, you pick up debris on the road but not the drainage?' If it rains, I've got real problems. I just need someone to tell me make the public bids and I could rebuild our parish in no time.""

From the Washington Post:

"In his Thursday speech, Bush implored evacuees to call the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Red Cross to register themselves, because "we need to know who you are." Bush was referring to people such as Steve Lacourt, whose mobile home in Pass Christian, Miss., washed away. Lacourt has tried to do just what the president asked -- for more than a week. One night, the 42-year-old mechanic said, he drove to a highway overpass, where his cell phone got some reception, and speed-dialed the toll-free numbers for FEMA and the Red Cross for six hours straight, from 8 in the evening until 2 in the morning. He could not get through.

Survivors such as Louise Dilsenroth and Sandra Brent, who has diabetes, have had similar problems in Mississippi. The women spent hours last week waiting in line to get a number that would allow them to enter a Red Cross facility to speak with an official. Brent said she had spent three days so far, trying to get a number. She has not had access to insulin since the hurricane hit.

Lacourt, the mechanic, said he has used up two tanks of gas driving around the region looking for housing assistance. A rumor of help in Laplace, La., turned out to be false. In Ocean Springs, Miss., FEMA officials working out of a former Kmart gave him FEMA's toll-free number again.

"That's completely useless," he said he told them.

"That's all we can do," he said he was told. (...)

"There was one blitz where FEMA was giving debit cards, which was not a good idea because it started rioting in Houston," said Dallas Mayor Laura Miller, who has criticized the lack of guidance and help from state and federal authorities. Miller said her city had been relying on private charity to help thousands of evacuees but warned that it could not last.

"When Congress approves $12 billion in two to three days of the hurricane, and two weeks later, none of the communities whose population has swollen by 25,000 has received any of that money, you have to wonder what is going on," she said. "Is it a bureaucratic problem? It sounds like it is.""

And the LATimes story makes it clear that the problems extend to other service agencies. Many of these have had their budgets cut in order to allow the Congress to pretend to be fiscally responsible while passing one swollen tax cut after another. Now, not surprisingly, the result is that many of them cannot cope:

"• Months ago, the Small Business Administration created a data processing system that was meant to revolutionize its delivery of disaster loans. But the system has stumbled badly because there haven't been enough new computers or staff trained to use them, and the central computers have been strained by the workload.

• Officials at the Department of Education are only now beginning to address questions over who will pay what costs for educating tens of thousands of schoolchildren displaced by Katrina. Meanwhile, school districts inundated with evacuees have had to open shuttered schools and order portable classrooms.

• Federal officials responsible for programs designed to help the poor are tangled in questions about rules that vary from state to state. Families that received welfare in Louisiana, for instance, may not be entitled to payments in Texas, where they have been resettled. And almost everywhere, funds for programs such as Head Start were stretched thin before Katrina hit.

• FEMA has continued to stumble, leaving tractor-trailers packed with ice and water intended for evacuees sitting out of position for days or sending them to places that had no need. And the agency's rushed efforts to deliver evacuee housing points up a lack of foresight and planning that could have long-term ramifications. (...)

Frustration is evident in a message by a middle-level FEMA official, who sent a plaintive cry for help up the chain of command, along with this warning: "We have now told the state of Texas (and thus all the states) that it may directly pay for evacuees in hotels. For how long? For how much? Does this include food?" his Sept. 7 memo asked. "What I heard was Texas being given carte blanche to run this new program as it sees fit solely on its statement 'We have controls.' Do we know what these controls are?

"We are going down the path here of no federal accountability for huge sums of money," the official warned."

And on and on and on.

Last week, the always annoying David Brooks blamed it on the nature of government:

"But of course this illustrates the paradox at the heart of the Katrina disaster, which is that we really need government in times like this, but government is extremely limited in what it can effectively do. (...) This preparedness plan is government as it really is."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Constructing an effective disaster-relief organization is not an insuperable task, beyond the limits of human ingenuity. It's not like building a perpetual motion machine, or even proving Fermat's last theorem. It's a basic managerial task, and if we, working through our government, can put human beings on the moon, we can surely manage this. Blaming the response to Katrina on the inevitable failings of government is just a way of not blaming it on the Bush administration's failure to do even the most obvious things needed to make any organization work well: roll up their sleeves, appoint talented and competent people, and exercise enlightened leadership. And it's a particularly implausible way of extending the soft bigotry of low expectations to our President, since when he took office, FEMA was by all accounts a well-run agency.

Nor can we say that Katrina exposed new and undreamt-of problems with disaster response. It exposed problems that the Bush administration had apparently not considered, but that's a reflection of their ignorance and unprofessionalism, not of the difficulty of responding to a completely novel situation. Knight-Ridder:

"Addressing the nation on Thursday night in a speech from New Orleans, Bush said the storm overwhelmed the disaster relief system. "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces, the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice," he said.

Several emergency response experts, however, questioned whether Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff understood how much authority they had to tap all the resources of the federal government - including those of the Department of Defense.

"To say I've suddenly discovered the military needs to be involved is like saying wheels should be round instead of square," said Michael Greenberger, a law professor and the director of the University of Maryland's Center for Health and Homeland Security. (...)

Also on Friday, Bush said he thinks Congress should examine what role the military can and should play in natural disasters.

"It's important for us to learn from the storm what could have been done better," Bush said during a question-and-answer session with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "This storm will give us an opportunity to review all different types of circumstances to make sure that, you know, the president has the capacity to react."

Former FEMA Director James Lee Witt, who served under President Clinton, believes that the Bush administration is mistaken if it thinks there are impediments to using the military for non-policing help in a disaster.

"When we were there and FEMA was intact, the military was a resource to us," said Witt. "We pulled them in very quickly. I don't know what rule he (Bush) talked about. ... We used military assets a lot."

Jamie Gorelick, the deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration who also was a member of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks, said clear legal guidelines have been in place for using the military on U.S. soil since at least 1996, when the Justice Department was planning for the Olympic Games in Atlanta.

"It's not like people hadn't thought about this," Gorelick said. "This is not new. We've had riots. We've had floods. We've had the loss of police control over communities.

"I'm puzzled as to what happened here," she said." (emphases added.)

As Gorelick said, "It's not like people hadn't thought about this." It's just that the people the Bush administration put in charge hadn't thought about it. There's a difference.

And why didn't they think about it? Because they were political appointees with no experience in disaster management, and seem to have had no idea what they were doing. CNN:

"As Hurricane Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast three weeks ago, veteran workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency braced for an epic disaster. But their bosses, political appointees with almost no emergency management experience, didn't seem to share the sense of urgency, a FEMA veteran said.

"We told these fellows that there was a killer hurricane heading right toward New Orleans," Leo Bosner, a 26-year FEMA employee and union leader told CNN. "We had done our job, but they didn't do theirs.""

LATimes:

"Criticism also continues inside the agency.

"The decision-making is being done by a small inner circle and it's being done without the input of people who have worked on disasters for years or decades," said a longtime FEMA official involved with disaster relief. A second FEMA veteran who is familiar with the agency's response to previous disasters agreed with that assessment. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they had not received permission to speak to reporters."

The continuing screwups, which have already caused tremendous suffering and needless deaths, are not due to the immutable nature of government or the unpredictability of the disaster. They are due to George W. Bush's criminally reckless decision to put friends of friends and advance men in need of a job in positions of responsibility, and his apparent failure to do anything to make sure that they actually got themselves up to speed.

Now Bush has put Karl Rove in charge of reconstruction. If what mattered to him were sound policy, Bush would have sent a solid manager who knew about policy. Instead, he has sent his chief political operative. That tells me that despite his claim of responsibility, and for all that he talks about learning lessons, Bush is not the slightest bit interested in changing the way he operates. And if neither the sight of people left to die in the Convention Center nor the thought of his plummeting poll numbers can get him interested in doing things right, I don't think anything can.

Comments

[freelunch]

I have no respect for our president any more, but that doesn't mean that I want to see him continue to fail. Real human beings are suffering and dying because of his failures and I cannot imagine anyone wanting more people to suffer or die from another failure of the Bush Administration.

I have no idea if Bush understands the depth of this problem, but it appears that the only way he can start to address it before Tropical Depression EIGHTEEN becomes Hurricane Q and soaks the Gulf Coast, even if it doesn't hit it, is to put James Lee Witt or someone of that stature, maybe from the Coast Guard or military in charge, if they are willing.

It is awefully easy to say that Bush has proven that government doesn't work because he doesn't want it to work, but I'm not convinced that any of the anti-government people are actually good enough at running anything to manage to pull off a conspiracy to destroy effective government -- that was just a side effect of their inability to govern, and the unwillingness of Republicans to expect their own to govern well.

[freelunch]

I just checked a name list and was surprised to find that there are no hurricanes named Q. It looks like Rita will be the next one to soak the Gulf.

[Slartibartfast]

No Qs, ever. Neither are there Us, Ys or Zs, ever.

Sorry, lately been FOB with something nassssty, probably strep, so I've been out of it.

[hilzoy]

Slarti -- hope you feel better.

And it's a pity there are no Qs: it would have been fun to see them try to come up with names. (Hurricane Quixote?)

[Gary Farber]

Hurricane Quincy and Hurricane Uthor believe this is a conspiracy against them. Hurricane Yo Mama is less certain.

[liberal japonicus]

no Zelda?

[Gary Farber]

Hurricane Zelda's heard a discouraging word, and the sky is not cloudy all day.

[Cryptic Ned]

It is awefully easy to say that Bush has proven that government doesn't work because he doesn't want it to work, but I'm not convinced that any of the anti-government people are actually good enough at running anything to manage to pull off a conspiracy to destroy effective government -- that was just a side effect of their inability to govern, and the unwillingness of Republicans to expect their own to govern well.

The thing is that it's awfully easy to carry out a massive conspiracy to destroy effective government. You take the top thousand or so jobs in the government, put people in them who are philosophically opposed to the existence of effective government, and your work is done. It's not clear what happens next, but you can be sure it won't be effective.

Similarly, if the shareholders of Dell Computer decided that their CEO, CFO, COO and so on should be anti-capitalist activists, it would take roughly one day for the activists' plan of destroying the company to come to fruition. The phrase "fox in the henhouse" comes to mind.

[cleek]

I just checked a name list and was surprised to find that there are no hurricanes named Q.

Q is for Quentin who sank on a mire.
U is for Una who slipped down a drain.

[John Thullen]

Cryptic Ned is correct.

I've often wondered what it would be like for shareholders of a publicly-traded company to deliberately elect board members whose mission is to destroy the company and who hire company officers to do just that -- not out of some (misguided) notion of increasing shareholder value, but because they hate the idea of the existence of the company.

The U.S. Department of Interior is lead by people who don't believe the Department should exist. They are hollowing it out. Science and scientists are ignored.

FEMA was deliberately hobbled -- Allbaugh said so. Now the result of that action is the wedge that the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress will use to destroy more government.

I'm using civil language here. But what I want to say and do would look too much like nuclear terror.

And, by the way, Bill Clinton's remarks lately on the refusal to cancel tax cuts are brave and on the mark, considering his appointment as co-feel-good Ambassador to New Orleans.

It will do no good against the reptilian government-killer infestation. If you want to see what the United States will look like under the Republican plan -- Rilkefan's relative's plight is it. That will be how business will be conducted for healthcare, disaster relief, social insurance, make a list.

Yes, Wal Mart will deliver Pampers to your door on the third-floor of your flooded apartment building. However, your health insurance will be inadequate to fix that ruptured spleen.

For cites, call up the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, The Independence Institute and every other Republican Institute you care to and ask them to FEDEX their position papers to you from the past 30 years.

Did we all believe Bush's smirk signified nothing? It signified everything.

[John Thullen]

Well, Sumner Redstone has just hired Tom Delay's former chief-of-staff (see DKOS) as CNN's chief lobbyist to Washington, saying that even though he (redstone) is a life-long Democrat, Republicans are better for media companies like Viacom.

Having destroyed Ted Turner's (Communist) News Network, Redstone the traitor now enlists CNN in Delay's mission to destroy the Federal Government.

Foxification.

[hrc]

Krugman has weighed in on this and he can be found for free (yay) here:

Krugman

[Ugh]

The Christian Science Monitor has an article about repealing the Posse Comitatus Act (or at least modifying it), using Katrina as an excuse.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0919/p01s01-usmi.html

Lucian Truscott notes at Mark Kleiman's site that 90% or more of the senior military officers are Republican.

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/
09/politics_and_professionalism_in_the_modern_military.php

Back in the early 90s I took a class from Condi Rice when she was still a prof at Stanford. One of the things she had us read (and we may have done a class exercise on the subject, I don't recall) was an article that IIRC she wrote about a military coup in the U.S. circa 2010 (or perhaps earlier). [/tinfoil]

[liberal japonicus]

The Early Warning blog by William Arkin has a lot of interesting things. The latest is this

"Terrorists are unlikely to exploit a hurricane," the report’s summary begins. It took "experts" to conclude this? And why go on for four pages if that’s what they came up with?

I guess there are two reasons. First, I suppose that the 35 experts who took the taxpayer's money, drank the taxpayer's coffee and ate the taxpayer's donuts as they toiled away in their Booz Allen Hamilton conference room, felt obligated to report back something.

Second, I guess they felt they needed to warn federal and local law enforcement agencies. "It is conceivable that a terrorist group like al-Qaida, if it had plans in place for an attack elsewhere in the region or country, might attempt to time such an attack to a hurricane," the Red Cell concludes.

But they then contradict themselves, saying "The participants assessed that a splinter terrorist cell or a lone actor, rather than an established terrorist group, would be more likely to exploit a hurricane on site. This could include persons pursuing a political agenda, religious extremists, or other disgruntled individuals." Those who would promiscuously reference Al Qaeda of course aren't pursuing a political agenda.

The brilliant out-of-the-box thinkers put forth a number of silly recommendations: "maintain nationwide security and emergency preparedness … observe and report casing of critical infrastructure by unfamiliar vehicles … report missing personnel and equipment … increased security procedures [at evacuation centers] …"

How about this one? "Increase patrols and vigilance of staff at key transportation and evacuation points (for instance, bridges and tunnels), including watching for unattended vehicles at these locations." Boy, I hope someone has reported all of the unattended vehicles in Louisiana and Mississippi.

And finally, "increased security procedures at shelters" … and "ensure that food and other emergency relief supplies are secure."

Increased security procedures at shelters? Ensure that food and other emergency relief supplies are secure? How about assuring that food and relief supplies are even delivered?

[ral]

the smirk

Have you noticed President Bush's facial expression lately? Look closely at the left corner of his mouth in almost any published photograph.

Before the 2000 election, I had a brief political discussion with my dentist, a Republican. It's memorable because he made a point of saying he didn't like Al Gore's smirk (he may have said "sneer"; I don't recall exactly).

I could hardly believe my ears. George W. Bush's smirk was clearly visible even then. But now, it's unmistakable.

Did your mother ever tell you "don't make that face, or it will freeze that way"? Now we have proof.

(with thanks to John Thullen)

[slarrow]

Beg pardon, but I can't quite believe I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing in these comments. Is the thesis that President Bush wants to undermine the effectiveness of government by consciously appointing bureaucratic saboteurs seriously being discussed?

Look, I'm a big personal fan of this president and think he's far more in-touch and connected than the people on this board are disposed to believe, but I'm not going to claim that he's ever been a shrink-the-government kind of guy. It's not part of his temperament, he didn't run on it, and he's made no promises regarding it. In fact, it's one of the biggest beefs conservatives have with him. So I cannot find credible the assertion that he's deliberately installed incompetents in the area of disaster management, especially knowing the potential political fallout of such a move.

It's one thing to say that this president didn't take disaster relief seriously, demonstrated by his nomination of Michael Brown (who, I will point out, was confirmed by a Democratic Senate to an assistant position, indicating that no one was taking emergency response seriously enough). But that's at odds with the contention that he deliberately foresaw an opportunity to cripple people's trust in the government and put an incompetent in place (in the hope, I presume, that another disaster would hit?)

Look, folks: sinister genius or incompetent buffoon. Pick one.

[Slartibartfast]

There's always incompetent genius or sinister buffoon, for those predisposed to analyze at a distance.

[ral]

Via Avedon Carol, this play on Clarke’s Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. Making Light

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." --Napoleon Bonaparte, via QuoteDB

SOME say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Robert Frost

[John Thullen]

Slarrow: It is difficult to parse out what has happened.

Norquist, Bennett, Gingrich, Armey, the legion of Republican anti-government think-tanks, all the rest: sinister geniuses.

Strangling government between the Skylla and Charybdis of annual, crippling tax cuts and mammoth debt held in the hands of rational international hands (who will rationalize someday): sinister genius.

Now, whether the sinister genius has been applied with incompetence and buffoonery is an open question. And there is no doubt that George W. Bush is a genial fellow, not dumb, sincere like a sledgehammer banging on a rusty nail is sincere, and principled. I don't like the principles.

It was sinister genius for Karl Rove to realize that the folksy, charismatic Bush would appeal to the electorate, unlike the Raymond Massey-like and a little too traditional Republican Bob Dole and the Gruesome-Twosome Delay and Armey, or the odd-looking, let's-push-the-poor-out-of-the-wagon Phil Gramm. Rough messages from ugly people.

Bush. Rough message delivered by an attractive guy.

I agree: Democrats in Congress: useless.

I choose sinister genius over incompetent buffoon. Sinister genius can be identified and looks good in a campaign slogan. Incompetent buffoonery is too amorphous, and besides, the Democrats pretty much have that sewn up. Not true, but it sure was effective in getting sinister genius elected.

[cleek]

Look, folks: sinister genius or incompetent buffoon. Pick one.

the latter. the people who surround and inform him tend towards the former.

It's not part of his temperament, he didn't run on it, and he's made no promises regarding it

on the other hand, Bush has made and broken many promises (ex. "No nation building"), so you can't really judge him by his public statements. you can, however, judge him by his actions.

[Jesurgislac]

slarrow: So, your view is that he accidentally installed incompetents in the area of disaster management?

I mean, absolutely, the Congress that voted on Brown's appointment ought to have noted that he'd padded his CV and sent him back and asked for someone who could do the job.

Given how Republicans are wont to react when Democrats in Congress turn down Bush's incompetent appointments, I suspect the answer would have been (a) protests about Democratic "obstructionism", and (b) Michael Brown appointed while Congress was in recess. That is what usually seems to happen when Democrats in Congress protest Bush's appointments.

Still, at least then the responsibility of appointing a complete incompetent to a job he's neither qualified for nor capable of doing would have been squarely in the President's lap. As it is for Bolton at the UN, another complete incompetent in a job neither qualified for nor capable of doing.

[slarrow]

Slartibartfast: true, but the internal contradictions in those categories tend to destroy a delightfully resounding inflammatory narrative. And if we can't have that, then why blog or comment?

Let me take a serious tack to amplify the point. I wish I could run down the quote that pointed out that the biggest mistakes with the most serious consequences are often made by the sharpest, smartest, most astute people around. The mistakes are made because they are human; the magnitude comes from their esteemed position (i.e., idiots usually can't rise that high.)

Thus far, what I'm seeing in the Katrina stuff on a technical, logistical basis falls into this category. I can imagine how satisfying it is to declaim "leadership" and take another swipe at the political leaders you can't stand. But when the number to the Red Cross (a private organization) is unreachable, I tend to view that as the result of someone not thinking that the phone lines would ever have to handle that kind of stress.

Maybe it's because I'm a computer guy and tend to view things in terms of networks and systems. But when someone like the tremendous scale of Katrina hits, I am not bowled over by the reports that hilzoy trumpets as evidence of further incompetence. Claiming that responding to something like Katrina is "a basic managerial task" does not properly recognize the scale and scope of what's happened, nor does it properly appreciate the realities of phased disaster management.

(Here I'm thinking of the mid-level FEMA official who wants parameters on having states pay for hotel rooms. It's a good question, and it's probably the time to raise it--now. But first you had to get them in the hotel rooms and make sure that the money would be there. Do it the other way around--like FEMA or other agencies have with some functions--and you get nailed for being so slow. Deep breath, people.)

None of this is to say "hooray" for anybody--yet. It's to put the brakes on a headlong rush to label "incompetent" before all the facts are in and the context is delivered.

Unless, of course, everyone is having fun piling on. Then I'll just go back to whatever it was I was doing and leave the rest to their regularly scheduled entertainment.

[slarrow]

Jesurgislac: my point was that the world people were describing in which the president decides to cripple the fed'l gummit by bad appointments is an unlikely one. I wasn't stating a position there but rather pointing out the difficulties in the one being proffered.

For what it's worth, my actual view is that President Bush treated the FEMA post as an essentially political rather than vitally important logistical and administrative post. I brought up the Democrats bit to show that he was not alone in this view. As events have shown, that was a definite mistake. But when it comes to Katrina, it was not the only mistake, nor was it the largest (that, I would think, was made by local and state officials who did not evacuate. In some measure that is an understandable mistake, but it's the biggest one nonetheless. Here I'm presuming that upgrading the levees was not feasible.)

The reaction from the Republicans might very well have been along the lines you describe--initially (although I think the padded CV thing would have come out and quickly undercut the strategy.) Still, the lack of reaction hints at an entirely different mindset, and I think it unfair and ultimately counterproductive to judge past actions on what we know now. If Bush should have known at the time that the FEMA job was that important, then others should have as well. He didn't, they didn't, we do now. Lesson learned; don't let it happen again. (Which means that I expect largish cities around the nation should be scrambling to revisit their disaster management plans. They're all doing that now, right, knowing what we know now?)

(We will not agree on Bolton. I like the guy and think he's great for the job, but I think disagreement on this front has to do with a different conception of what diplomacy actually is.)

[ral]

slarrow, I agree that the disaster was overwhelming, and large organizations are notoriously difficult to run well. But what is the point of having a Department of Homeland Security if four years after 9/11/2001 we can't successfully evacuate a city, even with days of warning?

You may call it "piling on" but there are too many vignettes to ignore:

• the Presidential guitar,
• the Presidential flyover,
• the Chertoff interview on NPR,
• Barbara Bush in Houston,
• Brownie's "heck of a job,"
• Hastert's "bulldoze it."

This is not just incompetence. This is an attitude. Perhaps you think it is appropriate. I do not.

[Slartibartfast]

Slarrow, your blog layout does some bad things to IE, just so you know. For one, it puts the caption at the top, and then puts the text way down below the bottom of the links. Sorta looks like the lights are on, but no one's home.

[Slartibartfast]

But what is the point of having a Department of Homeland Security if four years after 9/11/2001 we can't successfully evacuate a city, even with days of warning?

ral, by the evacuation plan, whose responsibility was it to evacuate New Orleans?

[ral]

Come on, Slarti, that will lead nowhere. Are we going to talk about the buses? Sure, local, state, and federal officials all had some responsibility. I think that thread is pretty much played out.

[Slartibartfast]

It was an easy question, ral, whose response could take up maybe three or four words. Why the evasion?

[Nell]

I would cap ral's list of vignettes with the placing of Karl Rove in charge of reconstruction. There's no clearer signal that the White House is more concerned about its own well-being than that of the people of New Orleans and the Gulf coast.

[Gary Farber]

"Michael Brown (who, I will point out, was confirmed by a Democratic Senate to an assistant position, indicating that no one was taking emergency response seriously enough)."

Do you have a cite for this?

I ask because my info is this:

Michael J. Armstrong was nominated by President Clinton on April 28, 1997 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on June 12, 1997 to be the Associate Director for Mitigation at the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

And the 104th Congress was sworn in January of 1995, with a Republican Senate majority, which has remained the majority since.

Also, do you have a cite for what you are referring to here, please?

"But when the number to the Red Cross (a private organization) is unreachable...."

Thanks.

[Gary Farber]

Whoops, wrong bio.

[Paul]

It's to put the brakes on a headlong rush to label "incompetent" before all the facts are in and the context is delivered.

Why? This isn't a court of law, it's a conversation. Surely, we're allowed to place blame on the basis of the information we have presently available. I think you'll find that isn't so unusual in day-to-day life. Or are you adverse to even speaking of such?

Sinister genius or incompetent buffoon? Incompetent buffoon, definitely, as far as I can tell. I do concede though, that there's a point where the distinction is negligible. Which one do you choose, slarrow?

[felixrayman]

ral, by the evacuation plan, whose responsibility was it to evacuate New Orleans?

According to FEMA's own study, how many people were predicted to be left in New Orleans after a mandatory evacuation, Slartibartfast?

[Gary Farber]

I'd still be curious to see a cite of Brown's confirmation by a Democratic Senate, though.

[Slartibartfast]

According to FEMA's own study, how many people were predicted to be left in New Orleans after a mandatory evacuation, Slartibartfast?

Do I need to ask the question again? Apparently, I do.

[Nell]

Ugh: One of the things [Condoleeza Rice] had us read ... was an article that IIRC she wrote about a military coup in the U.S. circa 2010

That's Charles Dunlap's The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.

[Gary Farber]

"That's Charles Dunlap's The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012."

That was my guess, as well.

[slarrow]

Oh, Slarti, how I know about my poor befuddled blog. Just started a few posts ago, but I couldn't get it to go away even after some tweaking. So I let it sit because no one was visiting anyway and who would know? (Besides, if I revamped it, I might get traffic, and then I might feel obligated to post all the time, and I kind of like being able to ignore it.)

Gary Farber: I initially found the mention here. The blog in question is here. That blog has a link to the full PDF document of the hearings. The post in that hearing was deputy director of FEMA; that may matter to you (it does not to me, in terms of the issues being analyzed.)

Paul: as you might expect, I choose neither. But I didn't set up the false dichotomy; not my table. Nor do I attempt to shut down conversations about where blame lies; I do attempt to get people to slow down, however, if they're rushing to make fools of themselves. Of course, if people enjoy that sort of thing, far be it from me to dampen their enthusiasm (a disclaimer you'll find on my above posts.)

[John Thullen]

"the sharpest, most astute people around."

And human, yes. McNamara and the rest of the best and the brightest come to mind.

Hey, don't go away. I'm engaging you in my own way, although others here are much more engaging.

As a formerly registered liberal Republican who out of the corner of his eye voted once for Ronald Reagan and as a former Federal employee who is married to a current Federal employee and knows plenty of Federal employees and who read and listened to the Gingrich Revolution very closely, I've got the street cred to say that today's elected Republican Party is hostile to the mission of much of the Federal government.

Gingrich's FDA and EPA == Gestapo was not rhetorical posing. It was not a metaphor. He meant it. He (Gingrich was merely the most outspoken of the Revolution) just didn't look too good saying it. His recruits in Congress and his intellectual spawn have been appointed to lead Cabinet agencies and administer the bureaucracy.

You've given me a choice between sinister genius and incompetent buffoon. I chose, even though most of my liberal allies choose the latter over the former. Oddly, many of the Red Staters choose the latter over the former, too; they're ticked off that their sinister genius ideas of cutting government to the bone have been so grossly misapplied by incompetent buffoons, in their opinion.

Now let me give you a choice.

The George Bush who promised to slash government: liar [in which case, I'll vote for him next time ;)]

The George Bush who knew politically that slashing government the way that, say, Grover Norquist wants it slashed, would not work for a 51% majority, as presented. Better to smother, derail, defund, incur staggering debt: Middling, but effective genius.

I will admit your choices sound more musical.

George Carlin often puts it to audiences this way: "Tell me six ways people are better than chickens. See, you can't do it." He goes on, among other examples, to point out that you never see chickens strapping a guy to a chair and hooking his nether regions up to a car battery, do ya?

Then again, Dick Gregory might point out that chickens taste better than humans when fried.

Yummy food for thought.

[Ugh]

Nell -

Thanks, I believe that is it (though I took the class in January 1992, which makes me wonder about the date when it says winter 1992-93, though I could be mis-remembering when I took the class).

[Nell]

Gary: sworn in January of 1995, with a Republican Senate majority, which has remained the majority since.

Except for the brief periods of the 107th Congress described here:

107th Congress (2001-2003) Majority Leader: Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD) Minority Leader: Trent Lott (R-MS)

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. He announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving that party a one-seat advantage and changing control of the Senate back to the Democrats. Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Trent Lott resigned as Republican leader on December 20, 2002. Bill Frist was elected on Dec. 23, 2002, as Republican Leader for the 108th Congress

The hearings for Brown as dep director were chaired by Lieberman, during one of the short intervals of Dem. control of the Senate under Bush. Cite here.

[RubyRoss]

To answer Slarti's question (whose responsibility was it to evacuate New Orleans): Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Primary responsibility belongs to the city, then to the state. FEMA inherits responsibility, though, when the situation warrants; that's why there are procedures for requesting federal assistance and designating federal emergencies.

"If the city and the state are stumbling or in over their head, then it's FEMA's responsibility to show some leadership," said Jerry Hauer, director of public health preparedness at the Department of Health and Human Services.

That's why we have a federal agency in charge of managing emergencies. They're the go-to guys when local resources are overwhelmed.

[Slartibartfast]

Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

Yes, actually, it is that simple, despite some subagency director from an unrelated agency says.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarrow: I don't have time just now to respond properly, but I did want to congratulate you sincerely on refusing the Bolton bait with style and grace. Hope you stick around.

(I didn't intend the Bolton comment as bait: it's my heartfelt opinion. I did realise when I read your response that it could easily have turned into a threadjack, and credit for it not doing so belongs to you.)

[slarrow]

John Thullen: I appreciate the response, although I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. If there is a choice, I'd certainly think the second is true; Bush is far more incrementalist on the domestic front than Norquist (or any of the Republican movers and shakers) would like.

And I can certainly think of more than six ways in which humans are better than chickens. Then again, I am not overly impressed by George Carlin. I prefer to think fondly of his turn in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure if I must think of him at all.

[RubyRoss]

I think there was some shared responsibility, but OK, have it your way. I guess as of August 27, complete responsibility belonged to FEMA: "Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency."

[Ugh]

Yikes - re-reading the Dunlap article gives me the creeps.

[felixrayman]

Do I need to ask the question again? Apparently, I do.

It was an easy question, Slartibartfast, whose response could take up maybe three or four words. Why the evasion?

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, and the sorts of things that FEMA provides are mentioned in the part of the release immediately following your excerpt.

Louisiana had ample resources on-hand to accomplish a more complete evacuation. If Louisiana required more in the way of law enforcement personnel to encourage people to leave, it's not clear that it even began to tap its own resources in that respect.

After the fact, though, is another story, and another set of circumstances altogether. After the fact, there was a veritable chorus of screwups.

Why the evasion?

It's what I'm asking myself, felix. Why don't you just answer, rather than posing a counter-question?

[felixrayman]

It's what I'm asking myself, felix. Why don't you just answer, rather than posing a counter-question?

Shorter Slartibartfast: It's ok when I do it.

[Slartibartfast]

hint, felix:

The answer to the original question still applies, even after your question gets answered. Which makes your question kind of beside the point.

[Slartibartfast]

And, actually, a shorter me on this point would be: it's ok when I do it first.

[Ugh]

We've descended into meta-snarkiness.

[felixrayman]

The answer to the original question still applies, even after your question gets answered.

And the answer to the more relevant question would be that FEMA had no plans to deal with hundreds of thousands of people they fully expected to be stranded in a disaster which they knew, with a high degree of probability, would occur in the foreseeable future, and which they considered the third worst disaster scenario to plan for.

They didn't come up with good plans to deal with those hundreds of thousands of people because the Republicans massively cut the budget with which they could have done so.

All this is, apparently, the fault of Democrats, enivronmentalists, the mayor of New Orleans, and taxation of the estate of a supposed very rich corpse for which Republicans are feverishly gravedigging.

Of course we should wait until all the facts and context is in (will you take your own advice, slarrow?) and we should answer questions instead of evading them (will you take your own advice, Slartibartfast?).

[Gary Farber]

Slarrow and Nell, thanks for the reminders of the Jeffords Interregnum, which had slipped my mind in haste -- bad me.

On the other hand, while I object not to the Democratic confirmation being brought up as a valid point, it does strike me that, in context, where Democrats are beaten up like crazy -- sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly -- by Republicans for being overly partisan and mindlessly hostile to President Bush and his appointees, that for Republicans -- in general, not in specific, as in specific, all are individulas -- to in general hollar and whoop at Democrats for not confirming Bush nominees to then say "well, you really should have fought harder on this one to get any credit for it" is quite similar to the same sort of dynamic that takes place on a playground or schoolyard between the big powerful kid who beats up the little kid, and the little kid's choice to either fight back, and be criticized for irrationally fighting, or to not fight, and be criticized later for not having fought.

For instance, it is now commonly said by many Republicans that if a Democratic Senator doesn't vote to confirm John Roberts, the Democrat would vote for no conservative. So, if, hypothetically, in the future, it turned out that Roberts was an android drug-dealing llama-f*cker, Republicans could then say "well, look, the Democrats voted for him and share the blame; they get no credit for opposing Roberts!"

But if they oppose him, they'll be called mindless partisans.

Kinda hard to see past the lose-lose there for Democrats, whether it's Brownie or Roberts.

[Slartibartfast]

And the answer to the more relevant question would be that FEMA had no plans to deal with hundreds of thousands of people they fully expected to be stranded in a disaster which they knew, with a high degree of probability, would occur in the foreseeable future, and which they considered the third worst disaster scenario to plan for.

Yes, FEMA had a plan. The plan was as it is everywhere else: state and local government is responsible for evacuation.

They didn't come up with good plans to deal with those hundreds of thousands of people because the Republicans massively cut the budget with which they could have done so.

Oops, no. FEMA has never, ever been responsible for evacuations. FEMA has some vague obligations in the area of after-the-disaster evacuations, but...tell you what. If you can point out one prior hurricane in which FEMA had anything nontrivial to do with evacuations before the fact, I'll consider that maybe you have a point. Otherwise, this is completely unsubstantiated.

All this is, apparently, the fault of Democrats

Objection, mindreading.

we should answer questions instead of evading them

Sure, where relevant. Where not relevant, not.

[felixrayman]

Yes, FEMA had a plan. The plan was as it is everywhere else: state and local government is responsible for evacuation

And they knew their plan would leave hundreds of thousands of people stranded in a flooding city, knew they needed to come up with something better, made plans to come up with something better, then cancelled the plans because the Republicans drastically cut the budget.

FEMA has some vague obligations in the area of after-the-disaster evacuations

What's this, some mutant variant of the "nobody could have predicted a hurricane AND a flood!" argument? It's contradicted by the facts.

Objection, mindreading.

No, it's threadreading over the last few weeks.

Sure, where relevant. Where not relevant, not.

Your gracious apology for not answering the relevant question of how many people FEMA predicted well ahead of time would be stranded in a flooding city is accepted.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: The plan was as it is everywhere else: state and local government is responsible for evacuation

...and if they let you down - for whatever reason - the federal government's plan is to let you drown, starve, or die of thirst/drinking poisoned water.

[Gary Farber]

"The plan was as it is everywhere else: state and local government is responsible for evacuation."

So FEMA's plan is that if a terrorist act or disaster disables state government, be it a flood in the state capital, massive cases of anthrax showing up all over the state capital, a nuke going off, tornados, civil disorder, or whatever, we should bend over and kiss our asses goodbye?

Slart, your basic point that local and state government have crucial responsibilities here, and mustn't be cut slack or overlooked in a rush to blame the Federal government, is completely correct. But as sometimes happens with most of us, including you, you're going way over the line of what you would be best off defending, by implicitly not acknowledging that FEMA bears responsibility, as well.

So: "The plan was as it is everywhere else: state and local government is responsible for evacuation."

That's a pretty simple plan. And if that's what it was, then it's fatally flawed. Duh.

"FEMA has never, ever been responsible for evacuations."

Let's say that's true, arguendo. So: therefore, FEMA did good, and everything worked out fine in the Gulf.

Okay, that doesn't fly.

Things worked out badly, but it's not FEMA's fault -- is that the bottom line you're trying to put forward? Because, if so, you know, I don't think it really matters. Because, in fact, I think you'd be hard put to find a sensible person who doesn't think that their city government has responsibility in a disaster, and their county, and their state, and their Federal government. All of them.

And if we stipulate that city and state crashed completely, arguendo, that really doesn't let FEMA off the hook in the slightest for not being prepared for that contingency.

Because, you know, it's almost as if, in an emergency, something like that might happen. Don't you think?

[liberal japonicus]

I'm wondering when the burden of proof shifts from folks on the left having to prove that this admin is incompetent (there are schools being painted!) to folks on the right having to prove that this admin is competent.

However, it is not a binary choice between competence and non-competence. The gods elevate those whom they would destroy, I suppose.

[Phil]

Slarti, in this exchange with felix:

And the answer to the more relevant question would be that FEMA had no plans to deal with hundreds of thousands of people they fully expected to be stranded in a disaster which they knew, with a high degree of probability, would occur in the foreseeable future, and which they considered the third worst disaster scenario to plan for.

Yes, FEMA had a plan. The plan was as it is everywhere else: state and local government is responsible for evacuation.

. . . only makes sense if by "deal with" felix was specifically limiting himself to "evacuation." You two are talking past each other. Both the NO/LA plans for evacuation, and FEMA's NO disaster scenarios, apparently anticipated that even following a successful evacuation by state and local authorities, there would be in excess of 100,000 people without means, or who were otherwise incapable of leaving, stranded in the city. That, I believe, is what felix is talking about when he says that, even given the state/local evacuation being successful, FEMA had no plan to successfully deal with the people left.

Maybe some of us should try talking to each other instead of trying to prove what a dick the other is.

[Gary Farber]

"Maybe some of us should try talking to each other instead of trying to prove what a dick the other is."

Variant: maybe some of us should try responding to valid points of the other, no matter that the other person is being a dick. (Note: I have no formal training in philosophy, but I'm fairly sure that "being a dick" at a given moment is actually different than intrinsically being a dick; in other words, "what is the meaning of 'is'?" can be a pretty important question.)

[Slartibartfast]

So FEMA's plan is that if a terrorist act or disaster disables state government, be it a flood in the state capital, massive cases of anthrax showing up all over the state capital, a nuke going off, tornados, civil disorder, or whatever, we should bend over and kiss our asses goodbye?

No, just you, Gary. Want to discuss this? Drop the nastiness. I expect this sort of thing from felix, but from you...out of character. Your being upset about this changes exactly zero about what's so.

[Slartibartfast]

. . . only makes sense if by "deal with" felix was specifically limiting himself to "evacuation."

If so, it was a change of subject, because the entire point of my exchanges with anyone on this thread was the evacuation.

[Gary Farber]

"No, just you, Gary. Want to discuss this? Drop the nastiness. I expect this sort of thing from felix, but from you...out of character. Your being upset about this changes exactly zero about what's so."

I apologize for any perceived nastiness. I intended no nastiness. I am unaware of any nastiness. I will possibly apologize for said nastiness upon having it pointed out to me. I wasn't aware of being nasty, and don't know what someone else's comments have to do with it. Having not intended to be nasty, I can assure you that I, um, didn't intend any nastiness. Now: we're talking about what? (Slart, maybe we should all start handing out "I had no idea you'd think that was nasty" tokens to each other?; it's a real suggestion, almost, in the sense that I think a number of us genuinely think so, often.)

[Gary Farber]

So FEMA's plan is that if a terrorist act or disaster disables state government, be it a flood in the state capital, massive cases of anthrax showing up all over the state capital, a nuke going off, tornados, civil disorder, or whatever, we So FEMA's plan is that if a terrorist act or disaster disables state government, be it a flood in the state capital, massive cases of anthrax showing up all over the state capital, a nuke going off, tornados, civil disorder, or whatever, we should bend over and kiss our asses goodbye?

No, just you, Gary.

My instinct is to interpret anything as not a personal attack, and to try, at first approach, to skip over personal attacks.

But, on second look, I'm at a loss as to how to take "no, just you" here as other than a personal attack. Could someone offer another interpretation, please?

Because it's rather a clear read to read this as "Gary Farber, you should bend over and kiss [your] asses goodbye?" when it's emphasized as "No, just you, Gary."

Was I not supposed to take that personally? Am I missing something about a blogowner telling me to bend over and kiss my ass goodbye as within the posting rules?

I sure hope so. My personal admiration for any blogowner tends to not extend to such expressions.

My abstract knowledge of Slarti suggests that he isn't about random attacks like that, so I'll tend to assume something else is going on.

It won't involve my taking someone else's not so polite suggestion as to what to do with my ass, though.

[Gary Farber]

"If so, it was a change of subject, because the entire point of my exchanges with anyone on this thread was the evacuation."

Points matter vastly less than actual subjects. They can be quite tricky that way. It's almost as if one is responsible for one's meaning, not just one's intention.

[rilkefan]

Jackmormon, can we have a "Hating on Gary Farber" blog, please, or at least a post on HoBD? Anyway, hereby releasing my annoyance at GF into the ether since it doesn't suit me.

[Gary Farber]

"Jackmormon, can we have a 'Hating on Gary Farber' blog, please, or at least a post on HoBD?"

I will meet all the hate with all the wuv and sweet kisses and responsiveness it deserves.

I am nothing if not for wuv and goodness and kindness.

Um, but if you have a problem starting a blog, try here. Four-year-olds have been managing since last millenium, so I kinda doubt you need the help. Really (both about my doubt, and your lack of help setting up a blog beyond that of a four-year-old).

Jeez, I might actually apologize for the specific annoyance, maybe, if you asked me. It's not as if I didn't agree with plenty of specifics in which I've been annoying (and disagree about others, sure). I'm full of flaws. I'm a very flawed guy.

[rilkefan]

Dude, check out the blogroll to the left. Anyway, I promise never to make a joke, however well-intentioned, in your general presence ever again.

[Frank]

Slarti- I find it wierd that you only want to discuss the evacuation. I thought we had already hashed it out when I demonstrated that N.O. Mayor Nagin's evacuation was successfull using the same link that you claimed proved otherwise.

I haven't seen any substance to your claims here either.

[Gary Farber]

"Dude, check out the blogroll to the left. "

Dunno who this is directed to. but I clearly see several separate blogrolls. But, presumably, since this is a blog where on the one hand, we need to be clear about legal obligations and facts and to what we speak, and on the other hand, we are to be reprimanded for adhering to law, apparently the entire United States of America is silly or something. Who the hell knows?

Myself, I'm never funny, as is clear on the record. And anyone saying so couldn't possibly be a putz, on said record.

[hilzoy]

Gary: I suspect rilkefan is directing your attention to 'Guests'. about halfway down.

Everyone else: [Rodney King]Can't we get along?[/Rodney King]

[Slartibartfast]

Slarti- I find it wierd

Yes, I know.

I thought we had already hashed it out when I demonstrated that N.O. Mayor Nagin's evacuation was successfull using the same link that you claimed proved otherwise.

Yes, absolutely successful, [John Glenn]100%[/John Glenn]. Guess there's nothing to complain about except the pace of the cleanup! Upthread, though, someone claimed that FEMA muffed the evacuation, so you might want to take the battle to our friend ral.

And of course that prompted a whole lot of opinionating about to what degree FEMA is in fact responsible, which boil down to, as far as I'm concerned, that a speck of responsibility is all that's needed to pile on the blame. So everyone who didn't commandeer a bus to New Orleans to evacuate, and everyone who didn't exert the last iota of waking energy to the end of making sure New Orleans had a decent evacuation plan, a decent recovery plan, and levees that could withstand a Category 5 hurricane, we're all equally to blame. Me, I'm firing myself.

Or, you know, not. Maybe, just maybe, there are degrees of blame. So: black/white, or shades of gray, pick one.

[Frank]

Slarti- Or maybe you WISH Nagin would take some of the blame since otherwise your President will end up looking that much worse.

By the way Key West just had a mandatory evacuation, but only 50% of the population left.

(I blame the poor judgement of the white community enabled by decades of privilage myself.) :)

[Slartibartfast]

Slarti- Or maybe you WISH Nagin would take some of the blame since otherwise your President will end up looking that much worse.

Your mindreading skills could use a little work, Frankly.

By the way Key West just had a mandatory evacuation, but only 50% of the population left.

Yes, good comparison: Rita, barely a Category 2 as it passed Key West.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said more than 2,000 Florida National Guard troops and dozens of law enforcement officers were ready to deal with the storm’s aftermath, although it appeared the Keys were spared the storm’s full fury.

Oh, you didn't say that. Never mind.

[felixrayman]

Maybe, just maybe, there are degrees of blame.

Maybe, just maybe, there are people who will go to great lengths to avoid the realization that the present administration is utterly and totally incompetent and corrupt, and that their mixture of ideological rigidness, crony capitalism, and Three Stooges-style incompetence, repeated over and over, is causing long term damage to the US.

But, if only New Orleans had had "dozens of law enforcement officers", available, perhaps all those problems would have been avoided, right?

[Theodore Perry]

Thank God for Katrina . Yes I just thanked God for katrina I know many have lost all. Just as in war many must die for the better of even more.I beleave Katrina will prove to be a wake up call and a very humbleing experiance in wich we will all become better people. For a tragedy like this will surely last in our memory for ever so will the help that poured from heaven in our time of need and I would like to take this time to thank everybody that allowed there hearts to be opened by this storm for the love that has been unleashed by this tragedy is surely far greater than the storm